- (1.) This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 30.07.2008 as passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4753/2006 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the claim of the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) for family pension in respect of the services rendered by her late husband, who died while in service in the year 1984.
(2.) The respondent No.1 filed the writ petition aforesaid stating the grievance against denial of family pension and prayed for the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:- i) quash and set aside letter dated 18/02/2005 issued by the office of respondent No.2 (ANNEXUREP/7) according to which benefit of Pension is not admissible to the petitioner after making payment of C.P.F. Any other order which is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner may also kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get Family Pension from 8/7/1984 on the death of her husband on 7/7/1984 while in service. iii) To direct the State Government to finalise the claim of Family Pension of the petitioner and pay her the amount together with arrear thereon from the date the same became payable after adjusting the amount of CPF already paid. iv) To direct the State Government to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Pension and arrear from the date same became payable till the date of actual payment. v) Any other order, which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(3.) The relevant background aspects are that late Shri Tulsi Ram, the husband of the writ petitioner, had been a Class IV Employee in the Public Works Department ('PWD') since 30.07.1971 and died on 07.07.1984 while working as Carpenter Grade-I in the Office of Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division-I, PWD, Jodhpur. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition was that her husband having rendered the service for the requisite number of years, she was entitled for family pension; and she had regularly been pursuing the matter that remained under consideration of the department. In this regard, the petitioner referred to some of the communications including the one dated 29.08.1997 (Annex.1) whereby the Executive Engineer, PWD (Mechanical Division), Jodhpur directed the concerned Assistant Engineer for appropriate proceedings. The petitioner averred that under a communication dated 30.07.1998 (Annex.3) the Assistant Engineer informed that the pensionary benefit could not be allowed to the petitioner as the amount of Contributory Provident Fund ('CPF') had already been paid to her. The petitioner further averred that she made a representation dated 28.03.2003 to the effect that she was prepared to return the CPF amount and prayed for reconsideration of the case for grant of family pension; that yet another representation to the same effect was made on 09.06.2003 (Annex.4) and then, she got served a notice for demand of justice through lawyer on 11.07.2003 (Annex.5). The writ petitioner pointed out that ultimately she came to know of a communication dated 18.02.2005 (Annex.7) as received from the Office of Additional Chief Engineer, PWD (Jodhpur Zone), Jodhpur to the effect that pension was not admissible if the CPF had already been paid. The petitioner further averred that after coming to know of the aforesaid communication dated 18.02.2005, she submitted the option for family pension in the office of the Superintending Engineer but was directed to submit the same in the Office of the Assistant Engineer. After the aforesaid narration of facts, the petitioner referred to point No.4 in the circular dated 15.07.1994 (Annex.9) as issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Rajasthan and contended that as per this circular, a person could exercise the option for pension and in case of the employee being not alive, the option given by any authorised person of the family could be considered as valid; and that pursuant to this circular, she had submitted her option on 31.05.2006 with the requisite affidavit. The petitioner further averred that despite the aforesaid, she was not granted family pension and got served another notice through the lawyer on 07.06.2006.;